I have a possible problem with the CD. I was listening and got to the track that I've thought to be mine and noticed something wrong. I download the file that I know is mine (dial-up allowed for me to patiently download the one file) and it nulls out perfectly with my original file. On the other hand, only one channel of the CD nulls perfectly against my file. Did you do that to make me unbiased of my own track? It's odd that one channel nulls perfectly and the other is very prevalent. Is this normal?

I will continue to listen to the other tracks, but take my comments with a grain of salt as there may be a problem with my disc. Although, mine sounds very close to the original so I don't think this will be an issue.

Michael, would you like me to cover you on the expense of the disc and shipping? Where would I send a check and who should I make it out to?

Thanks,
Erik

Edit: There was another difference that I deleted that might give my identity away.

Well, first off I must admit that this whole project was a huge learning experience. I heard many different approaches and I liked many of the masters. I also heard things making me think, "hmmm, I shoulda' done that too." This is my first quick review of everything and I think I will have more to say as I listen again.

What I really found to be interesting is where everyone differed as to how the stereo balance should be. Some left the stereo balance almosted untouched, while others made drastic moves to balance the background vocals. It was very striking to hear the preference of tablas moving for the backing vocals to balance as well as the opposite. I cannot comment on what I like best with the stereo balance of everyone's master because it changes depending upon where in the song I am listening. Although, I think I mostly prefer the balanced background vocal approach. I also noticed that some went with the M/S comp/eq pulling the cymbals and percusion more to the middle at the expense of the overall image's presentation, while other's left that alone leaving less definition to the overall presentation.

Of course, there were many tonal and dynamic differences as well. For the most part, I liked all of the EQ curves. Most of the masters had a very acceptable curve, yet each had its own character. It was as though everyone had there own opinion of exactly how this tune should sound (obvious statement- duh!). Obviously, the bass was an issue in the original. Some liked the bass more up and others liked it down. Funny, I kinda' liked both heavy bass and lighter bass as long as it wasn't too extreme either way. Although, I did prefer that the bass sound consistant.

Here's what I've heard:

1. It is a bit bass heavy where the real low end stuff sounds a bit too out of place.

2. This one sounded out of phase to me at times. It had a heavy bottom that carried out into a booming reverb. I did like the depth of it.

3. I like the tonal balance here. The bass occasionally seemed to hit some crossover point at times.

4. It had some monster bass and was very squashed.

5. I liked this one. The compression was a bit heavy but that may be what made this one of the punchier masters. The limiter was hit a bit hard for my taste. It also had a nice overall tonal balance. The bass sounded very appropriate for an acoustic type sound.

6. There's too much lower bass. The bass may have also hit the compressor to hard. The stereo balance could have been moved.

7. Very interesting tone. It doesn't necessary sound bad though. There's something of a "vintage" sound here. Although, the downside is a bit too much around the 800 Hz area and a bit too much of the extra distortion.

8. The low end is a bit overwhelming on this one.

9. There's some low end boom on this one too.

10. This sibilance is overwhelming. It is fatiguing to listen to this one. The high mids sound as though that contain a lot of narrow boosting. It seems as though the limiter was hit a bit hard.

11. The reverb isn't doing well here. It sounds out of phase and very wide.

12. Theres's a nice overall tone although the bass is on the lighter side here. The stereo balance could have been moved here as well.

Most of the comments I've made are really on the pickier side. I liked a lot of the masters for different reasons. It is interesting to hear what each engineers intentions were and how those intentions came to fruition.

Thanks to everyone as I've just learned a lot,
Erik

digidan00 wrote: It's a real shame I noticed this forum at the time I did. If I would of found out about this earlier I would of been jumping at the opportunity to work with a song.

Anyway, I know I'm late, but can anyone be so kind to send me a copy of the CD. (I'll gadly pay for it!)

I would like to take a crack at the original for myself and then compare to the rest. I would not post any comments on this project being that I did not participate.

Thanks in advance!

I'll second that. I'm a newb on this forum and certainly not equipped or qualified to wear a "mastering" hat, but I do master my own projects. I haven't had any clients take their work to a third party for mastering - yet.

I'd love to get a copy of the CD and the original file so I could give it a shot and see what others have made of it.

This has been an interesting read. While not a mastering test, I recently did a test on a couple of other forums. I may have even tried it here, but gotten no response, I can't remember which forums I used. But the test was: record a two minute ditty - the exact same project, one in 44.1/24 and the other in 96/24 and then convert them both to Redbook and post them. It was to see if anyone could guess which was which. It was done by pre-recording everything before sending it in, thus each version was exactly the same song, just recorded once for each sample rate - of course both were converted down to 44.1/16, AND made into Mp3's, (albeit at 320 bps).
At any rate, 80% of those who listened guessed the 96 sample one as the better sounding one. I thought it was interesting and fun, while not necessarily a bias-free test.

My internet is down so i am writing form the library, and on the downnide i am only writing from memory, i have to agree with most of the previous comments, also i would like to extend my acceptane to number 5, very well done, i had a bit of trouble with this one, #1 its not in english, #2 the recording wansn't really that good, anyways, i have to run 8-)

Michael, please release the names, i am curious to see if my predictions were correct...i bet they're all wrong :? :-?

just waiting for 1 or 2 more comments and mine too of course. then i'll release the names.

sorry for the couple of people that didn't make it in time to participate. we had to pull the plug at some point otherwise it would never had ended. we will be doing more projects in the future so check back often to participate.

Michael Fossenkemper wrote:

[sorry for the couple of people that didn't make it in time to participate. we had to pull the plug at some point otherwise it would never had ended. we will be doing more projects in the future so check back often to participate.]

I understand, I will check back often. Yet, I'm sorry to be a pain, but can someone send me a copy of the "Project" I will gadly pay for it. I believe the CD will be a valuable learning tool for me to use.

Thank you.

I finally had a chance to listen to everything. I have my comments. Some are pretty critical but critical is what mastering is all about. Who knows I may have ripped my own apart. I also take into concideration that the transfers and up/downloads can take away some of the hard work. Thanks to everyone who participated.

1. Good. Fixed low end without loosing the power. Vocal is dull, not getting my attention.
2. EQ pretty good. Don't like the verb and special stuff. It really changes the song. The big talking drum is out of phase now. I wouldn't do this without the artists input. Vocal not getting my attention.
3. Too bright, cymbals are taking my attention away from the rest of the song.
4. Low end from hell. way to loud/ Unlistenable
5. Too loud. Too bright. This is a mellow song why should the intro be slamming?
6. Dull not enough presence. Sounds safe, nothing glaringly wrong but not exciting either.
7. Too bright. no mid warmth.
8. Close. A little muddy making it narrow and hiding the air.
9. Very good. Transients around drums are crisp. Low end under control. Punchy Eq is great. This sounds like a bad conversion of mine. I thinks it's mine. It doesn't sound as good or powerful as it does coming off my computer. But it could be a little loss in the file transfers.
10. Very bright. losing all the warmth. Thin too loud. Hurts my ears.
11. EQ, level is good. Effects are weird. They lesson strength and intimacy of the vocal.
12.Good. EQ is good. Too much compression for my taste. Drums are loosing a little snap. Kept the spirit of the mix and enchanced it.

9. Very good. Transients around drums are crisp. Low end under control. Punchy Eq is great. This sounds like a bad conversion of mine. I thinks it's mine. It doesn't sound as good or powerful as it does coming off my computer. But it could be a little loss in the file transfers.

This is interesting!?
I've checked mine and it nulled against the original.

I've found no problems with any of the transfers. The ftp protocall is pretty reliable.

Ok, so here are my comments. As we all know, the low end was quite large and over powering. Plus the bus compressor was reacting to this a little and pushing stuff back. all around a challenge.... but something that we don't get to work on every day. it was really great to hear everyones take on this.

1) I can hear a transformer humm in the intro, maybe ground but sounds like a transformer to me. Sounds good, nice stereo image. sounds like some tubes in the chain? Low end a little flabby for my taste but otherwise I like the midrange. I think a little detail is lost. maybe ld vox is set back a little but better than original. end has humm too.

2) a little too much pumping of the low end on the track. low end a little out of control still, in the sub region. maybe using monitors that don't go down to these freqs. a little clouding in the 2nd half. kick and bass pushed the ld vox back a little to far with the compressor. I like the high end detail in the cymbols.

3) I like the midrange, controlled the low end well but maybe breaking up a little. brought the vocals and other gooodies up front more. I like the balance overall, good detail on the high end. maybe the compressor input is a little hot or maybe a little tube emulation or warming thing is causing a little distortion. Over all a good one.

4) definately small monitors and compressor before eq. Limiter is doing most of the compression and is fluttering.

5) maybe a little too much low end control. 1st half a little too aggressive? vocals up front and present. Good high end presence and detail. good stereo imaging. 2nd half is nice. hear all the goodies in the mix. nice balance between everything. 2nd half is where I really like this one. makes my head move.

6) a little dull sounding. vocals set too far back for my taste. low end hitting the limiter and fluttering. doesn't pull me into the mix. low subs a little heavy. compressor really grabs the mix on the 2nd half and pushes everything too far back.

7) a little too much midrange for me. compressor or limiter is breaking up on the midrange. maybe some analog gear is being hit too hard? sounds a little like t racks to me on the 2nd half, band limiting and a little narrow.

8 ) low end is a little over powering, in the sub region. maybe small monitors? low end hitting the compressor is pushing the mix back a little too far. sounds like an all digital chain? 2nd half low end pushing everything back a little too far. vocal a little too buried for me.

9) good high end. mid range a little boxy. low end breaking up a little. sounds like an analog chain? good balance overall. maybe a little over powering on the low end. maybe midrange a little dull.

10) a little too much upper mids. a little too essy. brought out the inner detail of the mix but maybe a little too much band limiting. sound a little like t racks??? 2nd half is a little harsh on the upper mids or low highs. vocal is more up front which is good.

11) a little too much subs. maybe breaking up a little too much. image seems a little to wide. vocals up front more but still a little buried by the subs. compressor is pumping a little on the 2nd half but controls the subs a little more. because of the image widening, the lead is a little too set back compared to the bg's.

12) left side seems a touch heavy. high end a little set back. but nice. low end controlled and vocal brought up. a little hole in the midrange where some of the detail lies. something seems a little off on the right channel, maybe just the level difference.

over all I like 1,3,5, 9. I think that all the major problems were addressed well on these. the vocal was brought up and balanced. I think everyone brought something to the table. next post will be the names.

1=ammistsboel
2=bennyg
3=edlipman
4=IanJ
5=mike
6=audiobuster
7=Beachhut
8=studiob
9=joelambert
10=mixandmaster
11=trillium sound
12=soundfreely

ok, now for the chains and midset on why you chose to approach it this way.

me

C4 1 band below 130 hz
waves desser to catch some of those esses.
waves S1 shuffler set at a very small amount.
weiss lin eq
weiss DS1 compressor
waves L2 hardware
IDR dither
monitors b&w n802

not much compression was used (maybe 1-2 db), about 4 db of limiting on the 2nd half. this was part of an album mastering I did and I just pulled it off the CD. I think some of my influence came from the previous and latter tracks, more up tempo. In hind sight, I probably would have done a little less limiting, but I like how a lot of the inner detail is heard on mine. my main concern was bringing the vocal more upfront. I wanted the inner stuff to be brought out more and to make it move me on the 2nd half. I thought there was plenty of warmth on the mix so I didn't find the need to add any. the high end had a lot of interesting detail in it and I wanted to bring that out. the low end was a challenge and I wanted it to move me so a compressed it a little with a slow attack and fast release. I focused on the punch of the kick and bass in the 2nd half. the 1st half of mine sounds a little pushed and maybe should have been done with 2 different settings, but coming out of the previous track it worked. I wanted to stick with my gut and keep the one I did for the album. I liked how it brought me into the mix and when i cranked it, it still sounded good to me. The others I mentioned sounded good to me too. I really learned a lot from this and I hope the rest of you did too. seeing others comments, you can really tell how they leaned towards theirs which is perfectly understandable seeing that they were listening on the system that they worked on. the one thing I learned is that mastering is not a science stricktly, it involves tastes, gear, and experience. no one was right or wrong. I hope we can do more of these projects in the future.

Well, I must say I have learned a lot. Thank you once again to Michael and everyone who participated. This was the first time I ever mastered anything aside from a touch of compression/limiting on my own mixes before I give a CD to anyone. I did play around with a couple of other tracks to satisfy curiousity but this was my first completed master.

I feel a bit embarrassed talking about the gear I've used but here I go anyway. Please understand that I am not an ME (yet as I have much learn and I need better gear/room) and I never have done this for any money.

In Wavelab's Montage:

1. Copied track to two tracks in Wavelabs montage
2. One track was left alone and routed into master chain
3. 2nd track had Waves Q4 with a low cut at about 130 Hz and a slight bump around 350 Hz (the low cut could have been a low-shelf to better avoid the hole that I've recently realized I created)
4. 2nd track then had a Waves C1 comp set with a slow attack and release with a ratio of 3.5:1 providing a max reduction of about 5 dB

My thought process with the above was that I didn't want to compress the already compressed bottom and I was hoping to have the upper transients push into the original while smoothing out the higher end pumping.

Master chain (where both tracks feed):

1. Waves S1 where I wished that I pulled the asymetry on the right down more (on the CD the channels were swapped, so I don't know how you heard it/track didn't null out perfectly either)
2. Waves C1 set to split mode to "DeEss" (didn't like Waves DeEsser)
3. Waves Q4 for overall sculpting
4. Wavelab's Puncher Plugin set to soft and at about 30% (takes transients above -10 dBFS and adds harmonics providing a pleasant distortion/punch)
5. Waves L1 bearly ever touched
6. IDR dither within L1

I monitored through my Monitor Audio s5i's (my stereo speakers that I got really cheap- I'm kinda' broke and I didn't want to use my HR824's that I mix on).

I feel as though I have learned so much and I look forward to possibly doing more of this work as I am getting my feet wet with mastering. Although I am proud of what I've done on my first attempt with "truly mastering," I am eager to try to use what I have learned from this the next time I try to master something. I really wish that I had better monitors and a better room as I am working in my home remedy type of setup. Monitoring is so important I would have been less afraid to make changes to the audio if I could really trust everything I heard.

I know that next time I will be better thanks to all of you! 8-)

-Erik

Here's what i did:

-Out analog and in again
-Weiss EQ1 LP in MS(S +2db) and maybe a little overall gain.
-Weiss DS1 only used under 100hz

My CD player was on, witch somehow causes sync error leaking to the ADC analog input... I guess you learn all the time... :(

Best Regards,

Henrik,
what did you use in your analog chain? what was your concerns and goals in approaching the mix? did you use a limiter?

Hi,

Here is mine :

1- Waves S1... I should have been careful with it. I used this once in a while with extreme caution but I blew it this time. The asymetry was not right and caused the reverb kind of effect. :? During this project, I did not have my Sub plugged (repair) and the bass and sub-bass references were totally new to me. But this is not an excuse guys, SHAME on me ! :oops:

2- Manley Massive EQ, cut -2 db at 70Hz. HPF to 22Hz. Boost .5db in 16k.

3- Digital to Analog out with Benchmark converter, went trough Manley Vari-Mu (1 db attenuation). The pump effect was not coming from this but again from the S1 which cause the exageration of the existing comp in the recording.

4- Out from Analog to Digital with Mytek converter.

5- Waves L2, boost up volume (2 db) with soft limiting.

Great experience ! 8-) A lot of fun too. Hope we can do this again. It is a never ending learning process and gave me the opportunity to listen to my work ...blind and having 12 objective critics for free !! Where else can I get this ?

This was not an easy one to do; Not the best recording and mix, the style and being left alone with critical artistic decisions. Again, I loved the experience !

Hope to read everyone's critics soon.

Thanks to Mike again.

Richard

Henrik,
what did you use in your analog chain? what was your concerns and goals in approaching the mix? did you use a limiter?

Overall i liked the mix(allthough it had some distortion here and there). The mix was also compressed enough for the style(for my taste).
The bass was my biggest concern. I felt that a lot of the low end of the instruments and the vocal had very important information in this area. So my goal was to solve the bass problem without destroying the character and warmth of the song.

When I listened to the song directly and then out analog and in again(Just through the DAC and ADC) I liked the converted one better that the original, I felt the voice became more natural.
My DAC has tubes and transformers, and the input transformer used in the ADC is probably what you are hearing Michael.

When fixing the low end I discovered that using the DS1 compressor from about 100hz and down solved the problem nicely and leaved the frequencies above 100hz untouched so it didn't interfere to much with the low end of instrumets and the vocal.
I also did some MS(just +2db of S) I found that this opened the stage a little without destroying the center of the image.
As i recall it I didn't use a limiter, I just recorded the signal directly from the DS1.

I think that a lot of taste and "pleasing your monitors" was involved in this project. And as i see it that's the main reason why the versions sounded so different.

Interesting that mike & joe didn't comment on the low end being a problem as much as others including me.

This is what i did

Cranesong ibis with
50hz low cut,
165hz(e)-6db,
440 +1db,2.5 q
740hz(f#)+3db,
19.9k +6db
color source(distortion) on the high band setting at 3
waves deesser

Thanks this was fun,
Ed

beachhunt's process

This was my first master since getting the Waves plugins, so it was about as much of a learning process during the mastering as afterward... It took 4 runthroughs to get something I was happy with, but I wish I had done it a 5th time ;)

Chain:
Waves LinEQ broadband
Waves LinEQ lowband
Waves LinMB
Waves S1 Shuffler
iZotope Ozone 3
(Inspector and Waves PAZ Position, for metering)

First I used the broadband EQ to guide the overall spectrum toward what I like to hear (and see). I ended up with a small cut around 600Hz, an equally small boost around 1200Hz, a slightly bigger boost around 5600Hz, and a resonant hi-shelf boost at about 15kHz. I also cut (low shelf) a lot at 160Hz, before going into the lowband EQ. The broadband EQ's low shelf made the overall bass more manageable already, so I just used the lowband EQ to finely tune the sound.

I had been used to Ozone's multiband compressor, so it took some time just adjusting to the Waves LinMB interface and learning how the plugin reacted to each tweak. I ended up starting with its "adaptive multi electro mastering" behavior, then adjusting the thresholds independently, so that there was only a couple dB of compression in each band.

I tried to alleviate some of the phase problems with the shuffler, by bringing the width down to 0.80 and using some very slight adjustment of the asymmetry and rotation. I just wanted to get enough of the phase issues under control without making the overall image too narrow.

Originally I used the Waves L2 at this point, but I didn't like how it sounded, so I used Ozone's maximizer instead. Also, I figured Ozone was already going to be in the chain (I like its MBIT+ dither much more than Waves' IDR), so I just didn't see a real need to keep the L2 in the chain. Anyway, all I used in Ozone was the loudness maximizer (-0.2dB margin, -2dB threshold... didn't want to squash much) and dither with light noise shaping, and I was done.

When I listened to everyone's masters, I figured mine was #7, but I didn't remember all that midrange distortion. I went back through the chain and checked each device to see what happened. I thought I messed something up with the LinMB, since that plugin was so new to me, but it turned out being the broadband EQ. Switching off the 1200Hz and 5600Hz boosts got rid of the distortion... Just goes to show, I guess, a 1.5dB boost can make a lot of difference =P

HB

"Interesting that mike & joe didn't comment on the low end being a problem as much as others including me."

I didn't comment on the low end because I thought I didn't really need to. I think it spoke for itself. I also think that some of the low end problems in the masters were from monitors that didn't go down that low. there were some serious subs in this and I think that's what made it a challenge.

We are still missing Joe's approach, arent we?

It's interesting to se that some EQ'ed havily and others leaved it alone...

Best Regards,

Here's my signal chain:

(All dB levels are a rough guess)

Apogee AD8000SE D to A

Millennia NSEQ-2: 100 shelf - 2dB, 65 dip - 1.5dB, 10K +1dB,
21K peak +2dB

Manely Vari-MU: Slow Attack, Fast Release, barely moving the meters

Manley Massive Passive: 120 - 2.5dB, 3.3K +1.5

Apogee AD8000SE A to D

Waves Renn. EQ Plug: 28 Hz HPF

Cranesong HEDD: Tape 1.5

Waves L2: ARC, barely hitting (2 dB at most)

Everyone commented that this one was too muddy, so I was apparently too timid with the amount of low end cuts for most people's tastes. This was not monitored on what I would call small speakers, Dunlavy SC V's with Cello Performance II amps.
I could definitely hear all of that low end, just didn't do enough about it. Really can't bame the equipment, just operator error/ difference of opinion I guess. Some days you're not completely "on".

No, I would not call those monitors small. I think a lot of people including myself were are little baffled on how to approach the low end.

Really can't bame the equipment, just operator error/ difference of opinion I guess. Some days you're not completely "on".

I guess that was also what happened with my sync noise.

Best Regards,

Thanks again to Michael and all the others who participated/critiqued/etc. What a perfect learning experience.

As far as everybody else’s tracks, I found differences in the lo end more interesting than anything. (I thought the compression amount was mostly a matter of taste) I think it’s the same thing Henrik was saying with "pleasing your monitors". I thought more people would deal with what seemed to me to be a gain difference between the two channels. I boosted one side by .8dB (I can’t remember which one), and it seemed to give a much wider stereo field. Any more than that and I lost the middle. I made my other comments back on page 7, not that they were that insightful.

I was surprised at how little eq was done on many of the versions in the sense that there were real lo end problems, and the vocal was so buried. I don’t know, I thought a more aggressive approach was necessary if you compared this tune to some more mainstream World Music artists like Angelique Kidjo or even Les Nubians…It obviously didn’t need much in the way of compression, and everybody for the most part handled that REALLY well.

As far as my personal take on the tune…I didn’t think the lo end was all that hard to handle compared to the problem with the vocal being somewhat buried. As this was an exercise, I decided to try something a little aggressive that I had been messing with, without the risk of losing a client! ;) And that was using a Waves Multiband as a side chain and slam the daylights out of it in an effort to bring up the vocal (good catch Michael – I did make it sound like T-Racks!!!) So by overhitting it AND using their “makeup” or whatever it’s called button set too high, it got harsh in a hurry. I obviously heard that as soon as it was compared to some of the other versions.

The comments from everybody else cemented the errors of my ways. I had also used the same technique on another song, then played the results for a different client whose ears I trusted, and he said something along the lines of the highs sound “sloppy” which I thought was a great description, and that whatever I was doing, to stop it, cause it sounded worse than any of my work he heard in the past.

Fortunately, with under 10 minutes work, I was able to make the track sound back to where it should have all along by backing off the sidechain. It was really screwing with the transients in a bad way. Lesson learned and for once, NOT the hard way. :)

My chain was: Sony EQ notching out some of the lo and mid resonants. Pultec EQH2 slightly lowering the lo end and boosting some mids. Waves Multiband Compressor to change the compression shape of the lo end, and to de-ess. Waves Linear EQ scooping out some more lo end and 1K/Waves L2 just kissing the liminter. And a sidechain of the Waves Multiband Compressor which I was hellbent on using to ruin the mix.

Sorry for the long read, I didn't want to feel like I wasn't contributing.
:-?

Mixandmaster,
good comments...

funny thing, the Angelique kidjo album black ivory soul, was produced, mixed and mastered by the same people as the song we worked on. Greg Calbi got the mastering credit but it's my work they choose, and used for the album. When he heard what I did with the album, he called me up about a position that opened at sterling. I digress... my point is that I felt that this mix had all of the same elements and potential buried in there.

I Hope everyone had a good and positive experience from this.

So What's next?

Henrik, did you ever get your test results from the Plant?

As someone who is justing learning this art/science, I must say once again that I've learned a lot. I'd like to hear more of what everyone's goals were on this project. I know that I had the goal of trying to bring out the main vocal and give it an intimate sound. I thought that the main vocal is what would connect with the listener while there mellow rythyms and bass supportted the vocal from underneath. I also found, as somewhat of a newbie with mastering, that I easily fell into a bit of tunnel vision where I lost sight the bigger picture.

What was everyone's main goal? Is there even a main focus area that everyone had or was it more generalized?

I'd love to do another project like this where we all discuss what could be done and then try to accomplish that goal. It'd be someonething like having a producer with something in mind already.

-Erik

Michael Fossenkemper wrote: Mixandmaster,
good comments...

funny thing, the Angelique kidjo album black ivory soul, was produced, mixed and mastered by the same people as the song we worked on. Greg Calbi got the mastering credit but it's my work they choose, and used for the album.

You got politic-ed right out of a credit!!! We've all had that happen too many times. :evil:

I have that CD, but don't really like it, or listen to it that much - but I'll give it a listen and hear ...I like her earlier songs better. The vibe on that CD seemed forced to me, but it did sound good... 8-) So Michael, it was the Weiss EQ that I liked so well on the high end, huh? Too bad I can't afford one anytime soon.

And soundfreely, I thought the same as you, that bringing out the vocal was the real trick in this one. And if you think you had tunnel vision, look at my post above!

Henrik, did you ever get your test results from the Plant?

Not yet... i think that it will take a few more weeks before i get them :evil:

Studio B wrote: Really can't bame the equipment, just operator error/ difference of opinion I guess. Some days you're not completely "on".

For me this is the hardest part of the gig. My perseption definitly changes pretty quick. I try to take more ear breaks latley.

I also used to find my self getting into trouble with the master when I tried to much. So used the minimal approach on this track...EQ & dither. I don't think i even used a limiter. Some times cliping the converter slightly sounds better then the L2 to me.
Ed

Dear Sirs,

my name is Aitzi and i am, unlike you, a Mastering Newby.

But i think i have very good ears and i know how my master
should sound...

I am very interessted in this group project !
is it possible to collaborate in this noble association.

Maybe i can do a good comment
and i can see where i stand, with my knowlegde and mastering Qualities.

I would be very glad if this is possible

greetings from Austria
Aitzi

I was just wondering what would have caused the right channel odditty I heard on the CD of my master (#12). I noticed that the channels on the CD were swapped and if I swapped the channels back to where I had them, only the right channel (after channel swap correction) nulled out against the file on my system. On the CD it sound as though there was some upper frequency break up going on in the right channel that did not exist in the original file. Oddly, the center information had retained its focus. What could have caused this? As someone who is learning, any input would be useful info.

Thanks,
Erik

PS Ed Littman, your new studio is going to be only about 5-10 minutes away from me. Welcome to the area!

Hmmm, not sure what could have happened. nothing was done to the file so I'm not sure how the swap happened. I'll check the file you sent me and maybe send it back to you and you can compare that. Do you think it could be your CD player?

Aitzi,
Sorry you missed this one, it's all done and wrapped up, but keep your eyes peeled for the next project.

Hmmm, not sure what could have happened. nothing was done to the file so I'm not sure how the swap happened. I'll check the file you sent me and maybe send it back to you and you can compare that. Do you think it could be your CD player?

I don't think it's the CD player as I tried it on several players. I compared the file off your server to mine and it did null- just the CD was odd. The other tracks of the CD did have the channels matching that of the original file.

Do you recall if the file was channel swapped on your system? Did anyone else involved in the project notice that #12 was channel swapped?

I did just try playing my AIF file in windows media player and the channels are swapped there. Playing the file in Wavelab and Sonar worked fine. Now I am really confused. I wonder if there is something in the AIF wrapper spec that is corrupted. I bounced down a WAV version and it worked fine in all programs.

The channel swap is easily fixed, but what about the HF breakup in one channel? I am perplexed.

Don't worry about sending the file back to me (takes too long with my dial up anyway), you've done a lot already and I am very greatful. I think there's something else wrong on my end that I am missing. Maybe Wavelab doesn't export AIF to proper spec where some programs misinterprit the data? If so, no big deal, I usually deliver everything as WAV without issue.

Thanks,
Erik

soundfreely wrote: I was just wondering what would have caused the right channel odditty I heard on the CD of my master (#12). Thanks,
Erik

PS Ed Littman, your new studio is going to be only about 5-10 minutes away from me. Welcome to the area!

This type of stuff reminds me to send clients files as a zip file for protection.

Thanks for the welcome...my wife & I are actually moving in next week!
Ed

Michael Fossenkemper wrote:
Aitzi,
Sorry you missed this one, it's all done and wrapped up, but keep your eyes peeled for the next project.

ohh it's a pity. i look forward to the next group project .

greatz
aitzi

p.s. anyway, if someone have this files on a webserver lie about and want to open for download . i would be massive happy 8)

This type of stuff reminds me to send clients files as a zip file for protection.

I wouldn't dare to incode my masters into zip files.
Do you get a perfect null when comparing to the original?

You should have a null with checksum & tcp.

What is the checksum? This is an value calculated from a content of file by special algorithm. This algorithm is designed so that change even only one bit in the file data will cause the absolutely different checksum value.

Another good feature of the checksums is the fixed length of the checksum irrespective of the size of an source file. Unimportantly, what was the size of source file - 1 kilobyte or 100 megabytes, the length of the checksum always will be small. For example, 32 bits for CRC32 or 128 bits for MD5.

These features of the checksums may be used for revealing the damaged files or compare two files for identity. The good form considers granting to users of your files also the checksums of these files that they could check up integrity of files

Abbreviation of Transmission Control Protocol, and pronounced as separate letters. TCP is one of the main protocols in TCP/IP networks. Whereas the IP protocol deals only with packets, TCP enables two hosts to establish a connection and exchange streams of data. TCP guarantees delivery of data and also guarantees that packets will be delivered in the same order in which they were sent.
Ed

Isn't that similar to the ftp protocol?